Feed-forward 3D reconstruction models emit a per-pixel confidence that downstream systems read as a reliability signal. It is trained as a loss weight, not as an uncertainty magnitude, and whether it can be used as an error prediction has not been measured. We audit seven released backbones on thirteen datasets and score the confidence on four properties, how well it ranks error, whether its level is right on average, whether it holds across the confidence range, and whether its intervals cover the truth. The confidence ranks error well, but the predicted uncertainty is too low when it is read under conditions that are not exactly those of training. The median case is off by 2.4x across all seven models, and the error prediction is further off the more confident the model is. We show that this phenomenon can appear even though the loss's optimum is reached. A released model resumed under its own loss reaches that optimum on its training data within a few hundred updates and stays overconfident on unseen frames. A power law with two constants per backbone and dataset corrects the overall magnitude of the predicted uncertainty and leaves the ranking untouched. What no rescaling reaches is the scene, which we attribute to the model's missing knowledge of scale across predictions. Every correction we tried is close to right on average and still leaves two thirds of held-out scenes outside a five-point band, because what a scene is missing is a shape rather than a shift. We release the audit protocol, its results, and the fitted constants per model and dataset. Fitted with the target dataset held out, the constants bring the median case from 2.4x off to 1.35x, and a refit on a few labelled scenes of that dataset reaches 1.12x.

翻译：暂无翻译